Talk:Melee Weapons/@comment-203.215.120.209-20160214035953/@comment-70.48.114.148-20160214135714
Honestly, probably the best melee weapons someone could practically carry are a decent bayonet and a heavy-duty, high-quality bolo-style machete, perhaps one weighted in the back. The former for obvious attachment to a rifle to allow as much standoff as possible, and the latter for general utility and emergency use for swinging at legs (not heads). Any sort of melee implement would realistically be used - as melee weapons are - as an utterly last resort. Given the enemy being discussed, using a melee weapon carries with it so many dangers that there is almost no conceivable situation wherein the benefit would outweigh the risk. Even if there were only a single target, unless it was absolutely necessary to kill it, it would still be smarter to pass by and simply avoid the threat rather than engage the target in any kind of combat with an edged weapon or hand-to-hand, as all it would take is a single misstep, or misplaced foot, a small rock the attacker didn't see, an uneven bit of ground, an unexpected shift in the target's position or gait, and the attacker could be immediately placed on the disadvantage and vulnerable to a guaranteed death sentence. If the only means your enemy has of attacking requires them to close to melee range, and attack with their teeth, the obvious solution to this rather simple tactical question is to stay out of melee range, and simply never even offer your enemy an opportunity to place you in danger. While it is understandable and expected that this situation may not always be avoided, especially in an urban scenario, a firearm is still more reliable and safer to use in melee combat than any kind of striking weapon. Even in such a case that a melee weapon is called for, it's such the case that it should be something one can reliably and effectively kill with using only free hand, for the simple fact that if your enemy must not in any case be allowed to bite you, it would be wise to factor this into the planning and selection of a melee tool; one hand is likely going to be occupied with restraining or manipulating the enemy's head. Anything that requires two hands (or that could not be easily drawn and swung in a confined hallway) is a poor choice, showing a laughable degree of forethought. Mentioned earlier, if one really considers it, given this enemy, a desirable melee tool does not even need to be capable of killing in a single blow. It merely has to be capable of crippling or otherwise immediately incapacitating the enemy, with is a great deal easier. The enemy being discussed could have its killing ability severely degraded by almost any kind of serious damage to the arms, legs, or neck, to say nothing of the bullseye target the head. Hacking off an arm (or part of one) or burying the blade through tendons and connective tissue in the legs massively cripples a human body's ability to carry out any kind of attack or defense, and opens the target to additional similar attacks, ultimately making a kill easier and more liable. Even against a single target, this would be preferable to immediately trying to nail the head and kill the target with the first blow. Better to attack a larger target, and with almost certainly catastrophically cripple your target in several ways before going for the kill, making the whole process much safer. In such an example, a machete would be more than sufficient to deliver the sort of blows necessary to do this kind of damage, requires only one hand to use, can easily maintain a "battle edge", is useful in other survival applications, and in a pinch, can be used to prod and pin a limb, and can reliably damage the skull. Think smarter, not stupider. Katanas would be great if you were a samurai fighting other Japanese people who were similarly or more poorly armed several hundred years ago, and you were out of arrows, and didn't have a gun like all the other smart samurai did. But you're not.